It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religions provide the PROOF Religions don't exist. Religion's conspiracy against religion.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Esoteric Teacher:

ET >> Religions provide the PROOF Religions don't exist. Religion's conspiracy against religion.

All of your assertions in the Opening Post are false. The world is filled with ‘religions,’ which ‘you say’ holds the key to teaching that “Religions do not exist.” Heh . . . If they did not exist, then you would have no place to gather evidence . . .

ET >> Example 1: In order for me to be converted to the religion of Christianity, the 2 prerequisites would be: 1) I believe Christ is God manifested in man.

Your assertion here is bogus. What does Scripture say?

“For there is one God, and one Mediator* also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .”. 1Timothy 2:5.

The definition of the Greek term “mesites*” (#3316 = www.blueletterbible.org... ) forbids Christ from being either the “one God” OR “men” of the same verse.
------------------
1) one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
2) a medium of communication, arbitrator
-----------------
Paul teaches the difference between the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Son of God (Romans 1:4), saying,

“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist FOR Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist THROUGH Him.” 1Corinthians 8:5-6.

Scripture teaches over (Romans 8:34) and over (Colossians 3:1-3) that Christ is at the ‘right hand of God,’ which blows your example #1 out of the water. You are confusing what Scripture says VERSUS Denominational church dogma of men . . .

ET >> 2) Christians are by the very definition of the word, trying to be like Christ.

The Greek term “Christianos” (#5546) means “a follower of Christ” ( www.blueletterbible.org... ). The term is taken from the original Greek manuscripts without regard to what ‘professing’ Christians are ‘trying’ to be.

ET >> So, logic dictates that the purest Christian believes Christ is God, and that they must be like Christ.

No sir. Your flawed logic is based upon false assumptions of what it means to be a true Christian. Garbage in = garbage out . . .

ET >> Example 2: Another aspect of this only way to Infinite World Peace is this: Christian mission: Convert athiests to Christianity.

No sir. Again, your ‘Garbage in = garbage out’ method is working overtime. God reconciles the world to Himself by calling men ‘through’ the Gospel. Scripture says,

“But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit AND faith in the truth (‘message of truth’ = Ephesians 1:13). It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2Thessalonians 2:13-14.

Jesus Christ walked this earth and declared the exact opposite of your “Example 2,” saying,

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. "They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12:51-53.

ET >> There are admittingly different definitions to the word athiest. Many of which include or parralell the following:

Please forgive, but I am more inclined to believe someone who can actually spell ‘atheist.’ You threw everything against the wall and nothing sticks . . .

In Christ Jesus even now,

Terral




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Terral,
Beautifully said, couldn't have written it better myself.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Terral,

when you are done extending your will upon everything else, when you are no longer a slave to your own fears . .. . .

When you are who you are, and the fears of others do not define you . . .. .

When your fears are resolved within your own mind, so that you need not manifest your fears in our shared reality . . ..

When you accept the bible in it's entirety, without objection, without your judgments ... ......

If you want to continue a dialogue with me, concerning truth .. .. . .

join me brother,

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Religions do exist but do not expect all the anwers from them or the truth. If you want to know the truth go to the source. That is why Chrisitians should be studying the dead sea scrolls instead of the Jewish old testament and the Scribe written New Testament.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Religions do exist but do not expect all the anwers from them or the truth. If you want to know the truth go to the source. That is why Chrisitians should be studying the dead sea scrolls instead of the Jewish old testament and the Scribe written New Testament.


Any christian who seeks or wants anything, is not a true christian.

If they are waiting for his return, they are not a true christian.

If they are still looking outwards, they fail to abide and take into their hearts and minds the very gospell they quote.



Those who look outward dream. Those who look inwards, awaken.




What you are looking for is what is looking.
-- Saint Francis of Assisi


www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Any christian who seeks or wants anything, is not a true christian.

If they are waiting for his return, they are not a true christian.

If they are still looking outwards, they fail to abide and take into their hearts and minds the very gospell they quote.
[edit on 17-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]


Why would christ show up on earth if it was not to supplant the seekers of spiritual truth?

If you do not seek you do not find.

God seeks those that wish to achieve spiritual perfection.

Seeking out others that are followers of Christ is what organized religion is today.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Why would christ show up on earth if it was not to supplant the seekers of spiritual truth?


In what context do you use the word "supplant"?


If you do not seek you do not find.


If you have found, why do you still seek?


God seeks those that wish to achieve spiritual perfection.


But, our very dna supplies us with a genetic "programming" that prevents us from knowing god.

Before the sperm ever joined with the egg, it was destined that every cell of your body would be encoded with the instinct of:

"Self Preservation"

aka:

"Self Preserve"

but what does "Self Preserve" really mean to us?

Let us look at the words:

Self = Self, me

Pre = Before

Serve = service, to serve, to aid, to help

And from this we get the byproduct of: "Fear"

If god is the god of truth, then how can you approach god if you have fear encoded into every cell of your body?

Do you think god would know you?

How can truth (god) fear the truth (god)?



God seeks those that wish to achieve spiritual perfection.


god seeks nothing. god needs nothing. god prefers those who wish to achieve spiritual perfection, we are in agreement. However, god does not seek out those who wish to achieve spiritual perfection because evil intentions.

If you do a deed because you fear the consequences if you do not do the deed, are your intentions still pure, are your intentions still good?



Seeking out others that are followers of Christ is what organized religion is today.


then they do not know themselves. Because if christ was in them, and christ was god, why would they need to seek belonging and acceptance?

I agree with you that one must seek god, but first one must know themselves.

it can be easily proven that you are not even aware of your own motives.

it can be easily proven that you are not even aware of your own thoughts.

it can be easily proven that you are not even aware of your own intentions.

all these things can be easily proven with your answer to this question:

What is the opposite of Love?


[edit on 17-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Sorry to interrupt this epic and ever going battle, but fear is a conditioned response to a subject that can cause harm or a subject that you have a “bad” experience with. A child fears nothing. I.E. if you place a baby in a room with a snake, then the baby is going to crawl over there and try to play with it, if you place an adult in a room with a snake and they have always been told “don’t play with snakes or don’t go near one they will bite you”, then that person will immediately back away. A child is born with no fear. It is taught and conditioned to him/her. The definition of fear by google is: an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight) the key words there are danger or pain. That’s the reason why you fear something and why you want to flee.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
Sorry to interrupt this epic and ever going battle, but fear is a conditioned response to a subject that can cause harm or a subject that you have a “bad” experience with. A child fears nothing. ......A child is born with no fear.


You are in a state of denial.

Studies have been done that already have proven your assertions wrong.

Children that has never fallen, nor ever stood up were the subjects of the study.

100 children who had not been crawling for more than 2 weeks were put in a "box" of sorts that had walls 4 feet high.

The entire surface they crawled on was glass they could see through.

there was a zig-zag path to the way out, and to their parents who were urging them to travel about 12 feet from them.

But, underneath the glass there was a 10 foot drop to the floor, and also a platform that made a path to the exit, but not a straight path.

all 100 children would not go onto the glass that looked like a fall.

to make sure they payed attention to their surroundings, prior to them seeing their parents at the other side, first the conductors of the experiment ensured the child looked around at their surroundings and got aquanted with the surface they were on.

their percieved path was only 2 1/2 feet wide.

They were already afraid of falling, before ever having experienced a fall.

Scientists deduced that it was already encoded as instinct into their dna.

................................................

Need another example?

Go find a dog.

any dog.

any dog that has never seen a gun.

buy a toy gun, and point it at the dog.

and see how the dog reacts to the gun, even though the dog has never seen a gun.

The dog may "cower" or take a submissive role. The dog may defend itself. The dog may move away, or run away.

But it is clear that something within the dog has instructed it to fear the gun.

How can this be, it the dog has never seen a gun, nor can it comprehend what it is?

Fear is not a "learned" concept.

encoded within the egg, and the sperm is the instinct of "Self Preserve"

it is interpretted as "survive at all cost" by the portion of your brain that you choose to place you the observer in.

But, don't be afraid.

There is a part of your mind, buried within the deepest recesses of you own subconscious psychi that does have the intentions of remaing true to yourself.

This is why our minds are fractionalized, broken, and seperated.

How can TRUTH fear the TRUTH???



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
In my opinion the scientist and you are both skewing the results. In the example of the babies. First of all you are confusing the baby enough by putting it in a glass “box” and second the baby still has no clue what you want it to do. It’s a baby it doesn’t know to walk forward through a glass box towards its parent and plus the box is above a 10ft pit. Now not only have you just seriously confused the baby you have conditioned the baby to create a response to this, which in this case would be not moving. Second example, the one with the dogs. I have never tried pointing a gun at my dog, but I have played with it with a bone, the old fake throw and watch the dog run when you haven’t even thrown the bone. And I have noticed that if I act as if I am going to throw the bone at its face it will cower. But if I slowly lower it at her face she wont react. It’s the same with the dog and the gun. If you point the gun at its face using a threatful manor than it will cower, why because I can bet that 99.9% of all dogs, no matter the age have been hit in the face or skull before. Thus creating a learned response from pain. So in conclusion in my opinion you are skewing the results.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Hello? Anyone out there? Did Elvis leave the building again? Da#n you Elvis!



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Spaceman, nice responses to what Esoteric had to point out. VERY valid views! I've read about another view that might have streamlined the points of Esoteric. It's about newborns taking, then holding a breath right as they're about to be dropped into a pool of water. I'm not sure if this is something to be brought up on this thread, but it kind of headed that way, so I thought I'd ask.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Could you provide a link? And if this experiment is valid then there are plenty of things that could cause a baby to hold its breath. According to this site

www.healthtouch.com...'S+APPEARANCE+&cid=HTHLTH

A child may take a few short breaths and then hold its breath for a short while. If the babies are a few weeks old then who’s to say that they aren’t just holding their breath and then being dunked in the water, instead of being dunked in and in response holding its breath? The main problem with the baby being dunked into water experiment is who’s to say that the first time the baby doesn’t hold its breath and sucks in some water. This automatically conditions the baby to hold its breath so it doesn’t get water in its lungs. Isn’t there a theory of this sort of thing? Ah there is Newton’s Third Law.

www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”

So according to this then there has to be something to put the fear into the baby. The baby isn’t just conditioned to be fearful. The law doesn’t state that you have a reaction before there is anything to react to. This site which talks about Freud says many times that a child remembers or learns to be fearful. Just push control (Ctrl) and the key “F” and type in fear, you’ll see all the times the word fear shows up and every time the word fear is there the word remember or learn is near it.

www.eheart.com...

And finally this site talks about childbirth and the psychological stuff behind it.

en.wikipedia.org...

It says that “newborns do not have the capacity to feel pain or fear” If that’s not enough to convience you, I am sorry, for my attempt was in vain.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16

And finally this site talks about childbirth and the psychological stuff behind it.

en.wikipedia.org...

It says that “newborns do not have the capacity to feel pain or fear” If that’s not enough to convience you, I am sorry, for my attempt was in vain.


my apologies for my absence.
do not be sorry, but one can not convince me that anything but "fear" could be the first emotion when our genetic makeup of our first living cell has the dna encoding of the instinct of "self preservation" aka "self pre-serve", aka "self before i serve" ......

if people are truly selfish at the core, then fear is the only possible first emotion.

if the first cell looked around for definition and for input from it's surroundings. . ..

then all it really knew was the only message it had: "self before i serve", and it knew "i am".

and if the first cell was "i am self before i serve", then how can fear not be known to the infant long before birth?

reminds me of those cartoons of the flintstones and many other cartoons as well, with the scenes where they have an angel on one shoulder, and a devil on the other.

the devil represents selfishness, and what the person wants...

the angel merely represents the voice of reason that tells one of the negative consequences of ones actions, or lack of actions

in other words, the angel only represents fear, the fear of the "what ifs".

to hear from another person that:


It says that “newborns do not have the capacity to feel pain or fear” If that’s not enough to convience you, I am sorry, for my attempt was in vain.


babies do not have the capacity to feel pain?
babies do not have the capacity to feel fear?

then babies must not have the capacity to adhere to their own dna and their own genetics, and their own cells that comprise them as a whole.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Actually the statement “newborns do not have the capacity to feel pain or fear” makes perfect sense. Think about it, it’s a baby not a grown human. A child hasn’t been exposed to all of the hate and animosity of the world. It has nothing to fear. It doesn’t know any better. It’s a baby. Babies are smart in instinctual habits but they don’t think about what they are doing. They just do it, like an animal does. I think that to have fear you have to be able to understand what fear is. If you don’t know what fear or being fearful is then you have nothing to fearful of. Plus if a baby is fearful of things then why do they tend to do things that hurt them selves? For example they like to crawl of walk towards the road. If they are afraid then shouldn’t they cower at the site of a road? I’ll admit I’m skeptical about a newborn not feeling pain, because if they didn’t then why do doctors use anesthetics on male babies for their circumcision.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Religions' very core beliefs which sprout their respective belief systems crumble when the basis of their belief systems are applied to their belief systems.

Below are two examples that demonstrate to a degree that the teachings of religions are in conflict internally when only reviewing their own beliefs:

Example 1:
In order for me to be converted to the religion of Christianity, the 2 prerequisites would be:

1) I believe Christ is God manifested in man.
2) Christians are by the very definition of the word, trying to be like Christ.


So, logic dictates that the purest Christian believes Christ is God, and that they must be like Christ.

This being said, wanting to be like God is what got Lucifer expelled from heaven. So if i were to follow Christian beliefs to their end, i would in fact end up expelled from heaven for the same reasons Lucifer was.

How is me being converted to Christianity with the end goal being obtaining the same end as Lucifer the only way to Infinite World Peace?


Lucifer wished to be greater than God, not like God. Further, angels are not given the same opportunities and intellect bestowed to humans, and were created before Christ was born.

Living a Christian life denotes following the ten commandments and serving as witness to Christ. The end goal is not "Infinite World Peace", it is salvation. I'm curious as to how you deduced world peace being part of the equation.


Christian mission: Convert athiests to Christianity.

There are admittingly different definitions to the word athiest. Many of which include or parralell the following:

"One who does not worship, hold reverence for, or believe in any higher entity or deity"

In any and all monothiestic belief systems, including Christianity, follow a GOD who fits the definition of athiest. And if you doubt this claim, you only need to re-visit the first commandment: "I am a jealous God, and you shall have no Gods before me."

Follow my logic here, please.


Athiesm is a word invented by men to describe the anti-religious; attempting to apply a natural definition to anything supernatural, whether you're Christian or otherwise, is pointless and thus flawed logic, as you touch on in a few paragraphs, which renders this argument flawed.


If God does not acknowledge any higher entity or deity above God, then God is by the very definition, an athiest. And, if you dissagree, then if you were God, and there were nothing higher, would believing in yourself not make you an athiest? To say God acknowledges God's existance, therefore is not an athiest is to say the same as "I know i exist, so i am not an athiest".


God doesn't acknowledge a higher deity because there isn't one. This does not make an atheist. Clever play on words though.


So, since God is an athiest, and Christ is God, and Christians want to be like God, then it seems to me.....

Christians convert Athiests into people who's aim it is to be more like Christ who is God, who is an athiest.


It's not the mission of Christians just to convert atheists; it is their mission to educate (not "convert") all non-Christians. I'm not sure of the exact passage, after posting this I'll look, but it's something along the lines of how Christians should bear witness, but if the one they speak with turns away, let them, as it's no man's place to force faith unto another.


So the roadmap to " Infinite World Peace" is to take atheists and convert them into people who's aim is to be athiests.


I know I addressed this before, but this "world peace" track seems paramount to your argument, and I am again curious as to how you pulled "world peace" from the book of Revelations.


Does this prove Christ was not God?
Does this prove God does not exist?

NO is the answer to both questions. The only thing our belief systems prove is we don't know what it is we are talking about. And in order to fully believe armed with facts is to disregard both reason and logic for the intangible.


Don't mourn for my soul yet, "bible thumpers".

It is not my contention that there is no GOD. My purpose of this post is to demonstrate how the belief systems fail when only reviewing the logic of their very belief systems.


Again, you are attributing human logic to the divine, or supernatural, however you wish to address it, which is frankly impossible by nature alone. The logic of the (Christian) belief system rests upon following the rules set down by the trinity; finding ways to dispute the language it is represented with does not render the entire system illogical. It only shows how language cannot adequately describe the supernatural.

But don't take offense; your post is fascinating to me, just probably not in the way you intended it to be.

I am curious; are you an Esoteric Christian?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Heres one for the deep thinkers amongst you..

"... Could God create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it....."

Either answer proves he is not omnipotent.
Its a chicken and egg thing but it will keep you going for a while


[edit on 11-10-2006 by Slaine01]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slaine01
Heres one for the deep thinkers amongst you..

"... Could God create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it....."


But, God is the rock that is so big, and if all of existance is the rock, then what is there to lift the stone up from?



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Could god create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it? That is a good question. I think that he could create a stone that heavy but could easily create a power or ability for him to lift it. If you like quotes from the bible here’s one to answer your question.

LUKE 1:37
For with God nothing shall be impossible.

You read it, anything is possible.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
Actually the statement “newborns do not have the capacity to feel pain or fear” makes perfect sense. Think about it, it’s a baby not a grown human. A child hasn’t been exposed to all of the hate and animosity of the world. It has nothing to fear. It doesn’t know any better.


i humbly disagree, but i concede i think the possibility exists.

i dissagree because of the way hypothalmus works. the mother's hypothalmus does produce the same neuro-peptides that are released into the bloodstream, and throughout her entire body.

a neuro-peptide is a real small chemical protein that is produced by a gland approximatley 3 inches into the back of a person's mind. this gland produces chemical messages which are in effect the messages of emotions. so, unless you can prove that an expecting mother has not experienced fear throughout her entire pregnancy, you can not prove to me, nor to science that the cells of the fetus were not also introduced to the same chemicals that quantify fear. Furthermore, it is in a pregnant woman's nature to be hypersensative during her pregnancy, and also fear of losing something is still fear. so, if she has even contimplated losing her fetus in an accident, then that neuro-peptide has been introduced to the cellular receptors of the fetus. and, if the cells of the fetus have been introduced to fear, then the infant's cells know it, whether the infant is consciously aware of it or not.



I think that to have fear you have to be able to understand what fear is.


if their cells know it, so does the macro-organism.


If you don’t know what fear or being fearful is then you have nothing to fearful of. Plus if a baby is fearful of things then why do they tend to do things that hurt them selves? For example they like to crawl of walk towards the road. If they are afraid then shouldn’t they cower at the site of a road?


perhaps they do not comprehend what roads are, nor what automobiles can do. but heights may be a different story. just because an infant can not comprehend all the things everyone else fears, does not neccesarily coincide with the belief that they do not know of fear.


I’ll admit I’m skeptical about a newborn not feeling pain, because if they didn’t then why do doctors use anesthetics on male babies for their circumcision.


i gave that some thought myself, but i did not know they give babies anesthetics, nor have i ever witnessed a circumcision myself, other than my own, but the details are a little sketchy (that was a long time ago)

Good thoughts with your last post. i appreciate the brain food, and will ponder some of the things you have brought up.

thanks,
john.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join